9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The appellants are exporting their manufactured goods and for the export purpose they have been receiving services from the commission agents located outside India under a contract or agreement. The services received from such foreign commission agents are taxable as classifiable under clause (105)(zzb) of Section 65 of Finance Act, 1994. But the manufacturer-exporters are exempted from the whole of the service tax leviable on the said service and the exemption is provided to them by way of refund of service tax paid, in terms of Notification No.41/2007-ST dt. 06/10/2007 as amended by Notification No.17/2008-ST dt. 01/04/2008. In view of this, the appellants have sought for refund of Rs.2,91,010/-, claiming as service tax paid on the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03/2009 for the goods exported during the period July 2008 to September 2008. It is his submission that on 06/04/2009, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tech-II, Bangalore issued a letter indicating the deficiency in the refund claim filed by the appellant having not furnished bank realization certificate and proof of having paid the service tax towards commission charges and returned the refund claim. It is his submission that the appellant had exported the goods and subsequently submitted the bank realization certificate and the proof of payment of service tax. It is his submission that benefit of Notification No.41/2007-ST should not have been denied to an assessee who has complied with the conditions and could have been asked to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r commission charges. The said service tax was paid by him under the provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act 1994; under the reverse charge mechanism. 8. On perusal of the records, I find that the appellant had filed refund claim on 31/03/2009 on the last day when the refund claim needs to be filed for the period from July 2008-September 2008. It is seen from the impugned order, particularly from paragraph 9, that Revenue has not challenged the refund claim on merits before the first appellate authority. These findings are recorded by the first appellate authority. This would mean that the appellants are eligible for the refund of the amount of service tax paid by them and claimed by them. The only question remains is whether resubmis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
